Owen Friel (ofriel) <ofr...@cisco.com> wrote:
> So as this is informational, then should this boiler plate be removed?
...
> And do we simply tone done all the MUST, MUST NOT and SHOULDs to use
different words?
> Or.. should this be stds track?? Is that just too painful at this stage?
Hi WG, and WG chairs,
draft-ietf-acme-integrations does not define any new protocols or bits on the
wire, but explains how to combine the bits from other protocols.
There is precedence to using BCP14 words in Informational documents.
But, alternatively, the WG could decide to make it Standards Track.
I prefer to make it standards track, but that would be a WG decision.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list Acme@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
